The First Casualty Of War Is The Truth

It is often said that in times of war, the first casualty is the truth. When Donald Trump launched Operation Epic Fury, he said that the goal was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At the same time, when the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, was asked about it, he said that they do not even have access to the sites. Therefore, they have no clear idea about what is happening there, and he appeared somewhat confused.

In the southern part of Iran, Israel is carrying out strikes, while in the northern and central parts, the United States is conducting bombing operations. This raises an important question: if there really are nuclear sites there, then that is one issue. But the Americans also offered another justification. They said this is payback time for Iran, because for the past 47 years Iran has been attacking American soldiers.

However, no attack on American soldiers has taken place inside U.S. territory or directly on U.S. bases in America. What they mean is that through the years, various proxy conflicts have occurred in the Middle East and in regions where the United States has military assets. In those tit-for-tat exchanges, if an American soldier was killed, the blame was placed on Iran. According to them, the United States has now come to take revenge for those losses.

They then said that since American soldiers were killed, this action is self-defense. In this way, they described the operation as an act of self-defense.

Israel was going to carry out strikes anyway, and American troops were bound to become involved. But a justification had to be presented to the public. At that moment, the narrative had not yet settled in the minds of people that this was America’s war. Then it was said that the United States is here to remove the Iranian government, that regime change in Iran is necessary.

But within a day, that statement changed. It was then said that this war is not about removing the Iranian government.

Now the words being used by Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth are very extreme. They say that Iranians are “lunatics,” and that the world cannot allow such “lunatics” to obtain nuclear weapons.

This script feels very old. It reminds me of the many vlogs and discussions I have done during the Pakistan–India war periods and at other times as well—about the importance of narrative.

Especially in wartime, if your narrative has no strength, if it does not match reality, then it will fail and may even backfire.

According to the narrative presented, the United States claimed that its objective was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, indicated that inspectors did not have full access to certain Iranian sites, meaning there was uncertainty about what was actually happening on the ground.

The discussion also describes how military strikes were reportedly taking place in different parts of Iran, with **Israel targeting areas in the south and the United States conducting operations in northern and central regions. Another justification presented by U.S. officials was that the action was “payback” for decades of attacks on American soldiers through proxy conflicts in the Middle East, framing the operation as self-defense.

At different moments, the messaging appeared to shift. Initially, some statements suggested that regime change in Iran might be necessary, but later officials clarified that the goal was not to remove the Iranian government. Political figures such as Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth used strong language to argue that Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.

Overall, the discussion emphasizes that wartime narratives often change or evolve, and if the official explanation does not align with facts or public perception, it can weaken credibility and even backfire politically.